Comparison of geophysical shear-wave velocity methods

Abstract

Seismic hazard site assessment within the Canadian building code is primarily based on the average shear-wave velocity of the upper 30 m combined with an appropriate multiplicative amplification hazard factor. The least expensive and time-consuming geophysical field method to provide a reliable shear-wave velocity profile is therefore of great interest to our engineering community. In greater Victoria, shear-wave velocity profiles are available from 21 seismic cone penetration tests (SCPT), four tests using the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) technique, and two tests using the continuous surface wave system (CSWS) technique. As all three methods involve an active source that generates shear-waves or surface waves, they generally offer a restricted investigation depth (a few tens of metres). A non-active source surface wave method that uses recordings of microtremor (ambient vibrations/cultural noise) has become popular worldwide due to its ease, economy, deep penetration depth (hundreds of metres), and most surprisingly, correlation with earthquake ground motions. This paper compares the peak frequency observed from (1) microtremors, (2) earthquake recordings (when available), and estimated from (3) 1-D SHAKE modelling, and (4) shear-wave velocity measurements at SCPT, SASW, and CSWS locations in greater Victoria. At SCPT sites, the calculated peak frequency is in close agreement with the microtremor peak frequency, as they sample to the same depth. By comparison, bedrock depth was not reached at SASW and CSWS test sites, and as a result the microtremor peak frequency is generally lower than that calculated from the SASW and CSWS shear-wave velocity values. Overall, the combination of the singleinstrument microtremor method with an invasive (SCPT) method or another non-invasive (SASW and CSWS), but active source method, best demonstrated how the ground will respond, within the linear range, to a low-level earthquake.